 | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Is it necessary to make this a conditional promise? Can't each involved party rise to the moral high ground and ignore the other? (...) That comes from driving on the wrong side of the road and using that crazy metric system of yours. 8^) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) As he enjoys playing to the crowd. (...) I _feel_ the contrary. I have promised many times to leave LP alone - if he does the same with me. However, I feel he just can't resist taking a shot at me. Look at this thread – the message he just (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Things are worse than I thought in the US. "blacks" have been out of the closet here for a long time. Scott A (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Wrong again. See: (URL) (...) Very interesting, but none of that answered my point: "In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own" I note that I was talking about actuality - not theory. But, again, you chose to squirm. Despite that, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Balance snipped. Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really cares about any of this? If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again? Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) The specifics of evolutionary theory are under constant attack, as is appropriate for any branch of science. However, evolution itself is universally accepted among the serious scientific community; it's simply the details that are in dispute. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
|
All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post. They already know this stuff. Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
Snippety snip (...) If you *seriously* don't believe in survival of the fittest, I invite you to use plain old penicillin the next time you have a serious infection. We'll then see evolution in action. Two ways for the price of one! 1 - *the bugs* (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) First things first. The basics. Humans exist now. There's no record of humans existing over X million years ago. (No, I'm not a natural historian, I don't know the dates). There are records of species that aren't alive today. Like trilobites (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I was being brief, generalizing and sarcastic - I'll be more specific. (...) I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting to answer any of the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) From what I recall of history, the Zulus led by Shaka were anything but ragtag; they were an extremely well trained, organised and disciplined army consisting of men who had been taken into the army as boys and brought up in a military and (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Indeed. So what is the point of your system, if your "god given" rights can be removed the government? Are they only fair weather rights? (...) I know of no UK school which has a "whites only" policy in the last century. I know of no UK (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <Junk Science> (...) In this neck of the woods one will more often hear a reference to "pseudoscience" or perhaps even sophistry; that is, arguments which generally appear reasonably plausable, logical or convincing at a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Oh...well if that's all it takes, then I can dispel your assertions by mentioning that there are a few blacks at the highest levels of US government too. Great. (...) them? Their rights did protect them. But bad men in the government -- the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Is that like Lar += 2? :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my dictionary describes? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
